This is a notable, and widely publicised case, which highlights the powers available to Local Planning Authorities to prevent unauthorised uses of building and/or land.
On 19 August 2025, the High Court (Mr Justice Eyre) handed down judgment in proceedings brought by Epping Forest District Council (“the Council”) against Somani Hotels Ltd, the owner of the Bell Hotel in Epping. In short, an interim injunction was granted and the current unauthorised use of the premises to accommodate asylum seekers was to cease.
The Council sought an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the TCPA”) to restrain what it alleged was an unlawful material change of use of the Bell Hotel.
The hotel, previously in lawful hotel use within Class C1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (“the UCO”), had since April 2025 been used under contract with a Home Office provider to accommodate up to 138 asylum seekers. The Council argued this amounted to a sui generis use or alternatively a hostel use, requiring planning permission.
Somani Hotels contested that there had been a change of use, maintaining that the property remained in hotel use. Both parties accepted there was a serious issue to be tried but the dispute was centred around whether the balance of convenience favoured interim injunctive relief requiring the current use to cease/occupants to leave, or not.
The Court considered:
Section 57 of the TCPA requires planning permission for development, which includes a “material change of use”. Determining whether a change is material is a matter of fact and degree, considering both the character of the use and its planning consequences.
The circumstances in which a change of use will and will not amount to development was explained by Holgate J (as he then was) in Ipswich BC v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB). Holgate J set out that the key question is whether the change affects the character of the use of the land in planning terms, not simply the purpose for which it is occupied. He noted that the distinction between hotel use, and hostel use is a fine one, although the distinction is a real one, with the answer depending on site-specific circumstances and impacts. That approach was applied in this case. Given that planning permission was required, but not obtained, the unauthorised use in question could lawfully be the subject of planning enforcement action.
A key element in the case was the Council’s inability to serve a stop notice under section 183 of the TCPA. The legislation prevents a stop notice being issued where the use in question began more than four years earlier.
In this case, the Bell Hotel was first used to accommodate asylum seekers in 2020, more than four years ago. This meant that the route of serving a stop notice was unavailable and led the Council to apply directly for injunctive relief requiring a cessation of the unauthorised use under section 187B.
My Justice Eyre concluded that the strength of the Council’s contention that there has been a material change of use was such that it operated as a factor in favour of the grant of an injunction.
Mr Justice Eyre held that no one factor was determinative by itself, and he had looked at matters in the round. While recognising the weighty public interest in asylum accommodation and the financial effect on the hotel owner, he ultimately concluded that the balance of convenience fell in favour of the grant of interim relief. The Judge added that “the risk of injustice is greater if that relief were to be refused and an injunction is ultimately found to be appropriate than if the relief were to be granted and the court ultimately decides not to grant an injunction”.
Interim injunctive relief was therefore granted, and the current unauthorised use was required to cease.
The case has been widely reported by national press and media (and subject to additional commentary by those outlets) but the judgment can be read in full here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Epping-Forest-DC-v-Somani-Hotels-Final-Judgment-2.pdf
The case demonstrates that the development control regime has “teeth” in that a Local Planning Authority has a variety of enforcement powers at its disposal where it wishes to prevent an unauthorised use from continuing, with those powers (once invoked and authorised) potentially taking effect immediately.
Therefore, property owners and would-be developers are at risk if they, whether inadvertently or intentionally, change the use of land and/or buildings without being satisfied that such a change would not amount to “development” or otherwise having first secured a relevant grant of planning permission before commencing that use/“development”.
Holmes & Hills has a specialist team of planning law solicitors, including a number nationally recognised in their expertise as to planning enforcement issues. If you at risk of, or currently facing, planning enforcement action, please contact the team who will be happy to assist where they can.
Call us on 01206 593933 today to speak with one of our planning law solicitors. Or complete the form below.
Disclaimer
The content of this article is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice. The information given in this article is correct at the date of publication.
A Mackman Group collaboration - market research by Mackman Research | website design by Mackman
